127 Hours (2010, U.S.)

This was a strangely engaging film, based on a true story that I actually remember from the news at the time. Basically, Aron Ralston goes out hiking alone in the Utah canyons, has his arm pinned under a boulder, and is trapped for five days before he amputates his own arm with a pocketknife. Grim stuff.

The film was very well done. The opening credits were an interesting montage of crowded city scenes and nature, showing a stark contrast. Once the story gets going, it starts out with enough scenes to show Aron's character, a laid-back, easy-going, friendly hiker who is more into being in nature than communicating with humans. Once he gets on his bike out in the canyons, his exuberance is almost contagious. It would make even the most sedentary person want to get out there and do something in nature.

Once he's trapped, I'm a little torn on my feelings. Probably because I have a love/hate relationship with James Franco. During some parts he gives a powerful, moving performance, but at other times it's like he's a stoner who thinks he's James Dean. Way too much. Still, most of the performance is talent rather than melodramatic overacting. This part also has some very interesting and well-used special effects that emphasize his condition. One of the best was from the inside of his water bottle as he sucked the last few milliliters out. It's hard to describe, but it was fantastically done. Then they show a montage as he dreams of going to a party with lots of beer, watching a soda commercial, etc. Basically, it has the effect of making the viewer feel his thirst. Very neat.

Other than these interesting effects and montages, the music was the most phenomenal part. I guess I'm not surprised, coming from the composer of the stellar Slumdog Millionaire score. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounded like America when he looked out over the canyons. And the painful, screeching music used when he cut through his tendons while freeing his arm made me grit my teeth in pain, like it was my arm being severed. Wow.

So overall, quite a well-done film. I don't know if I would call it an inspiring survival story, because that's not what it felt like. It was more like an historical recreation—this is how it was. Even if the former was its intent and it didn't accomplish its aim, it was still a very engaging, thoughtful movie.

Rating: 3.5

Eat Pray Love (2010, U.S.)

Eh. The movie was better than the book, but that definitely didn't take much. And that's really about all I have to say about this movie. The scenery could have been exploited to much better effect. The writing could be stronger, but again, you have to consider the source material. I was most disappointed by the acting. I've always found Julia Roberts to be a very solid actress, and here she seemed weak. Whether it was the script or her, I couldn't say. I hope it was the former; on the other hand, her complete lack of chemistry with Franco or Bardem could have contributed.

I guess if you liked the book, you would like the movie. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste your time.

Rating: 2.5

Camille (2007, U.S.)

Possibly the most bizarre movie I have ever, ever seen.

Silas is a thief who marries his parole officer's niece Camille. He's not allowed out of the state, but he uses his future wife's uncle's sympathies in the hope that he can use his honeymoon to escape to Canada. Camille has always dreamed of honeymooning at Niagara Falls, and she cheerfully deludes herself into thinking that the honeymoon will change her scummy man for the better.

What follows is the strangest road trip movie of all time. Because Silas and Camille get in a fatal motorcycle accident. That's right, fatal. Camille dies, but she keeps on with her honeymoon. And it's her death that finally pushes Silas in the right direction.

They have all sorts of adventures, running from the police, hanging out with carnies, visiting the falls... Franco and Miller give just the right touch of humor and seriousness to this macabre love story, creating a strangely enjoyable movie experience.

James Dean (2001, U.S.)

I'm a huge Dean fan. Own all his movies (and a few tv performances), read several biographies, have visited his hometown/museum/birthplace/grave site. I've been putting off seeing this made-for-tv biopic because I just had a feeling they wouldn't do him justice.

I was right.

Surprisingly, I thought the best part of the film was Jame Franco. I say it's surprising partially because I find Franco to be hit or miss with his performances and because I didn't think anyone could really play Dean. Franco wasn't perfect, but it was obvious that he'd gone to considerable effort to study Dean and his mannerisms, and he wasn't bad at all. I thought he came remarkably close to capturing the brilliant, fragile, remarkable, talented, insecure, artistic, unique, and perhaps slightly crazy Dean.

The sets were also great, particularly the sets of the sets of East of Eden. (Incidentally, events during the filming of East of Eden were pretty consistently documented with the least disagreement, and therefore these scenes in the biopic seemed the most realistic.)

For the most part, I was disappointed. For one thing, they tried to cram an incredible life into only 95 minutes, flying here and there and skipping over very important parts of his life. (Though at least they captured his relationship with his father fairly well.) They also skipped over any discussion of his bisexuality. While this could have been a fair choice (since the issue is widely debated), I really didn't like their portrayal of him as so clearly heterosexual either. Perhaps I just didn't like their Pier Angeli.

They should have kept the working title of James Dean: An Invented Life. I think they just tried to hard to present their film as fact, when so much of Dean's life, especially his personal life, was clouded.

Rating: 2.5

Milk (2008, U.S.)

Of course I've seen biographical films of prominent historical figures, mostly Queen Elizabeth. Milk was an entirely different experience, since I'd never heard of Harvey Milk or his amazing crusade in Californian politics, advocating for civil rights for the gay citizens of San Francisco.

I really only want to talk about two elements of this film—the acting and the general plot. I'll start with the acting. I have never, never liked Sean Penn. In my opinion, he plays the same character over and over again. Not a very pleasant character either. I was pretty enraged when he stole the Oscar in 2003 for playing that same character in Mystic River. After Milk though, I have to retract my previous doubt as to his acting ability. Not only did he play a character completely different from any I've seen him play before, but he played it insanely well. He was charismatic, sweet, endearing, friendly. The few scenes that required any physical display of homosexuality were also well played. (As a side note, these scenes were not used too frequently and they were tastefully understated. Very well handled.) I have never been so impressed with Penn. All of the other actors were amazing too. My friend who I saw it with couldn't stop saying how funny Emile Hircsh was. I thought Diego Luna was pretty amusing as well. But of all the supporting roles, I was most impressed with James Franco, who I've never seen as a particularly strong actor before. His part was understated but very important. I think he could have easily gotten in Penn's way, but he stayed in the background and supported instead. It was well done. These four men just did a wonderful job playing characters outside of their normal ranges.

As to the story, it was straightforward but moving. Obviously, it echoes current events regarding gay rights, and it gave the (mostly) men involved faces and voices. They're people, and they're just like any other people. They deserve their civil rights. Of course you'd never hear me or anyone else who'd see this movie denying that fact, and those who deny it would never see this movie (and therefore potentially be swayed), so that doesn't accomplish much as a tool of activism. But it was well-made, nonetheless. The simple story of a man who found himself at the head of a movement, who ultimately lost his life after changing the lives of thousands for the better. I think "simple" is the best word I can use for this one. It just follows this man from his 40th birthday to his assassination 8 years later, told partially through his own narration in a tape made in case of his death by assassination. All of the main characters were real people, no composites. (And, of course, the film ended with pictures of the real people and what they did after Milk's assassination.) Nothing was overdone. It didn't seem preachy at all, though it easily could have. Instead it was just simple and touching. Wonderful.

Oh, and one last thing: score by Danny Elfman was markedly un-Danny Elfman. But it fit the film perfectly.

Rating: 4.0

Nights in Rodanthe (2008, U.S.)

Obviously, I love Nicholas Sparks. I thought the film adaptations of Message in a Bottle and The Notebook were both very good. I went into this one with pretty low expectations, however. First, I don't really like Richard Gere. Second, although I haven't read Nights in Rodanthe in ages, I do remember that it wasn't one of my favorite Sparks novels.

The movie was pretty good, I suppose. Richard Gere was a lot better than usual, and Diane Lane is great, of course. The character that stole the show from those two, however, would be the house where most of the action took place. It was so unique and gorgeous. The North Carolina coast and the hurricane were also breathtaking scene-stealers.

While it was somewhat romantic (inevitably), it felt out of sync. Some parts of the story were painfully extended, while others were rushed through. The stupid guys making all kinds of noise behind me did not help.

Anyway, if you like this kind of movie, you'll like this movie.

Rating: 3.0